ML20215B168

Applicant Answer to Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contentions on Rev 2 to State of Nh Radiological Emergency Response Plan.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20215B168
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	12/10/1986
From:	Selleck K PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#486-1850 OL, NUDOCS 8612120057
Download: ML20215B168 (14)

Text

t' o ,

i l/ ~

00CKETED USHRC Dated: December 10, 1986

~86 DEC 11 - P2 :14 UNITED STATES.OF AMERICA

~

( Ff:

NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION . t;CCr : ,,

before the /

' ATOMIC' SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444-OL

) Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Planning Issues

)

)

APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE'S CONTENTIONS ON REVISION 2 OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN INTRODUCTION Applicants make no response to SAPL testimonial introductory materials on the understanding and belief ~that these are descriptively introductory and self-serving only and that they do not go to the merits of any proferred contentions. However, insofar as SAPL intends by the recital:

"(J1oin in and adopts the basis of the

. . . Town of Hampton Contentions" (Revised Contention III to Revision 2; Revised Contention IV to Revision 2; 8612120057 861210 PDR ADOCK 05000443 g PDR

]).5 03

a ,

4' Revised Contention V to Revision 2; Revised Contention VIII to Revision 2.]

" contained in Memorandum on 10 CFR

$ 2.714(a)(1) and Contention of Town of Hampton to New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan Revision 2 filed by the Town of Hampton on October 31, 1986."

to incorporate and adopt Hampton Contentions as its own, Applicants incorporate by reference their answers to said Contentions as filed in this proceeding on November 14, 1986 in a pleading styled Applicants' Answer to Contentions of the Town of Hampton to New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan Revision 2.

CONTENTIONS Revised SAPL Contention No. 31 "The evacuation time estimate report, as described in Volume 6 of NHRERP Rev. 2 does not meet the requirements of 10 CFR

$50.47(a)(1), $50.47(b)(lO) and NUREG-0654 II.J.2, II.J.lO i, 10 h and 10 1, and Appendix 4 because it fails to account properly for the number of vehicles that would be evacuating the EPZ; relies in part upon unsupported assumptions; relies in part upon potentially biased input data; does not rely upon an extensive enough empirical base; relies upon traffic control personnel not shown to be available; does not appropriately account for travel impediments such as flooding, snow, fog and icing of roadways; does not account for the effect of driver disobedience on evaulation time l estimates (ETE's); does not i

appropriately deal with topographical features; does not deal realistically with the transport of transit dependent

persons; .in some instances overestimates roadway capacity and, for all of these reasons, underestimates the amount of time it would take to evacuate the EPZ and its subparts (" Regions") under the various scenarios analyzed."

This contention should be excluded. All that the NRC regulations require is the preparation of ETEs by Applicants. "The nuclear power reactor operating license applicant shall also provide an analysis of the time required to evacuate and for taking other protective actions for various sectors and distance within the plume exposure pathway EPZ for transient and permanent populations." 10 CFR Part 50, App. E, 5 IV (introductory paragraph). ETEs are not mentioned in 10 CFR.6 50.47. Such ETEs were prepared in connection with the Applicants' radiological emergency response plans, and the Applicants' ETEs were litigated in the August, 1983 hearings. While New Hampshire ,

may determine to employ its own ETEs, this Board is limited to litigation of matters required by the Commission's regulations; in any respect in which the state determines to go beyond the requirements of the Commission's regulations the plans present no litigable issue. See Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-781, 20 NRC 819, 829-33 (1984).

The requirement that Applicants prepare and submit ETEs is mirrored in the Staff / FEMA guidance document, NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, Criterion J-8. While the apparent assumption was che state and local plans would employ the Applicants' ETEs (or such portion of them that was relevant) in the plans for state and local action, there is nothing that constrains New Hampshire to use one set of ETEs over another. Any contention that ETEs must be litigated twice must, of necessity, rely on NUREG-0654 as supplying such a requirement. It is well-established, however, that NUREG-0654, which has never been promulgated as regulation, imposes no regulatory requirements. Even more plainly, NUREG-0654 must yield to the duly promulgated regulation where the regulation expressly addresses a topic. Thus, prescinding entirely from whether the various ETEs differ, the only set that is fair game for litigation in these proceedings is the set that has already been litigated.

Reasserted SAPL Contention No. 7 "The New Hampshire State and local plans fail to meet the requirements of 10 CFR

$50.47(b)(11), 550.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654 K.S.b. and II.J.12. because there has been no showing that the means of radiological decontamination of evacuee or emergency personnel, wounds, supplies and equipment have been established. Further, there has not been a clear showing that adequate means for waste disposal exist."

In its Memorandum and Order of November 4, 1984 the Board dismissed so much of SAPL Contention 7 previously admitted by Board Memorandum and Order of April 27, 1986, pp. 84-85, in regard to the issues of monitoring emergency workers and the adequacy of arrangements in the RERPS for

disposal of low level radioactive waste from decontaminated activities. It also found verifying the assignment of specific individuals to monitor emergency workers could be delegated to the NRC staff. ASLB Memorandum and Order, November 4, 1986 at 25-26. Board rejection of the need for letters of agreement committing host communities came earlier in ASLB Memorandum and Order of May 21, 1986, pp. 6-7.

The Board permitted so much of the Contention as regarding the adequacy of personnel and equipment (including that for collection and storage of radioactively contaminated water) to accomplish the monitoring and decontamination of the numbers of emergency workera and general public expected at the decontamination centers located at the host community reception centers to stand.

Id. at 26.

The Applicants do not oppose the admission of those portions of Reasserted Contention 7 which remain extant from the Board's rulings.

Reasserted SAPL Contention No. 8 "The New Hampshire State and local plans fail to meet the requirements that there be adequate manpower and 24-hour per day emergency response, including 24-hour per day manning of communications links, as required by 10 CFR $50.47(a)(1),

550.47(b)(1), 550.47(b)(2), and NUREG-0654 II.A.l.e, II.A.4. and II.F.1.a.

o Applicants raised no opposition to the united admission of Contention 8. They do not now oppose admission of Reasserted SAPL 8 with the proposed additional basis drawn from SAPL 8A with the limitations as contained in the Board's Memorandum and Order of May 21, 1986, p. 6, in reference to SAPL Contention 8A.

Reasserted SAPL Contention 8A:

"The New Hampshire Compensatory Plan fails to meet the requirements that there be adequate manpower and 24-hour per day emergency response, including 24-hour per day manning of communications links, as required by 10 CFR $50.47(a)(1), $50.47(b)(1),

NUREG-0654 II.A.1.e., II.A.4., and II.F.1.a."

Applicants do not oppose the admission of Reasserted SAPL Contention 8A if limited in the manner suggested in the Board's Memorandum and Order of May 21, 1986, p. 6, wherein assurances from the companies and the agencies supplying the personnel or materials are to be had but not as to require letters of agreement from individual workers, drivers, etc.

Redrafted SAPL Contention No. 15 "The letters of agreement that have been submitted by the N.H. Civil Defense Agency in Volume 5 of the State plan fail to meet the requirements of 10 CFR

$50.47(a)(1), $50.47(b)(1),

$50.47(b)(3), $50.47(b)(12), Appendix E.II.B. and NUREG-0654 II.A.3., II.C.4.,

and II.P.4, because they do not demonstrate that adequate arrangements for requesting and effectively using assistance resources have been made, o

that the emergency responsibilities of the various supporting organizations have been specifically established, that s each principal response organization has staff to respond or to augment its initial response on a continuous basis, or that agreements are being reviewed ,

and certified to be current on an annual basis as is required."

Applicants do not oppose admission of Redrafted SAPL s Contention 15 with the limitations as imposed with respect to nonopposition to SAPL Contention 8A and that letter agreements be limited to the provider of services not the recipients and.that they not be required of individuals collectively supplying a labor force or activity.

Reasserted SAPL Contention 16 "The New Hampshire State and local plans do not make adequate provisions for the sheltering of various segments of the populace in the EPZ and therefore the plans fails to meet the requirements of 10 CFR $50.47(a)(1), $50.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654 II.J.10.a. and m."

Applicants do not oppose the admission of this Contention.

Revised Contention 18 "The NHRERP Rev. 2 significantly miscalculates the numbers of non-auto owning population for the 17 New Hampshire local communities. No buses l

are provided in the plans for the individuals who are not accounted for i

due to these miscalculations.

Therefore, these plans fails to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 550.47(a)(1),

550.47(b)(8), NUREG-0654 II.J.10.g. and NUREG-0654 Appendix 4, p. 4-3."

Contention 18 concerns the methodology utilized to calculate the numbers of non-auto owning public. The Board in its Memorandum and Order of November 4, 1986, pp. 14-17, dismissed Contention 18 on the basis that it called for

" extraordinary measures" not required by the regulations of the Commission. No appropriate grounds are advanced for its revision.

Reasserted SAPL Contention No. 25 "The New Hampshire State and local radiological emergency response plans do not reasonably assure that the public health and safety will adequately be protected because the provisions for protecting those persons whose mobility may be impaired due to such factors as institutional or other confinement are patently lacking. Therefore, the plans do not meet the requirements of 10 CFR

$50.47(a)(1), 550.47(b)(8) and NUREG-0654 II.J.10.d."

, SAPL Contention 25 as initially introduced was concerned

! with whether mobility impaired individuals had been i

identified. The Board in its Memorandum and Order of November 4, 1986, pp. 14-17, dismissed the Contention for reasons as previously stated in connection with SAPL Contention 18. SAPL now seeks without any authority in the rules to do so to object to that decision by reasserting the Contention and enlarging its basis. Applicants oppose the Contention's "re-admission".

-8 -

i l _ _ _

SAPL Contention No. 33

" Contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 550.47(a)(1), $50.47(b)(8),

650.47(b)(9), $50.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654 II.J.12, there is no showing that NHRERP Rev. 2 provides adequately for the registration and monitoring of evacuees at reception centers within about a 12-hour period."

, Contention 33 is in essence a restatement of SAPL Contention 3 in terms of NHRERP Revision 2. The Board in its Memorandum and Order of April 29, 1986 rejected SAPL Contention 3 at pp. 81-82. Applicants oppose the admission of SAPL Contentin 33 on the same grounds, the absence of a regulatory requirement for relocation centers to be able to provide for all evacuees who leave the EPZ.

SAPL Contention No. 34 "The New Hampshire State and local plans do not meet the requirement that there be maps showing the population distribution around the facility as required at NUREG-0654 J.10.b. and Appendix 4. Therefore, there is no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken pursuant to 10 CFR 550.67(a)(1) and $50.47(b)(10)."

Applicants do not object to the admission of this Contention.

SAPL Contention No. 35 "NHRERP Rev. 2 does not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 550.47(a)(1),

$50.47(b)(7), 550.47(b)(9),

550.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654 II.G.1 (and its subsections) and II.J.12 because the

,e .

1

public information material does not instruct the public to go to reception centers for monitoring if there is any danger they have been in the plume exposure area."

This Contention does not arise out of NHRERP Revision 2, and no showing has been made as to why it could not have been raised earlier. The material which SAPL argues should be included in the informational materials was not in prior drafts either. Moreover, there is no regulatory requirement or regulatory guide of tenor set forth in the Contention and hence the Contention is beyond regulatory requirements and impermissible. The Contention should be excluded.

SAPL Contention No. 36 "The authorities (legal bases),

responsibilities and concept of operations between the Town of Salisbury, Massachusetts and the State of New Hampshire Emergency Response Organization has not been set forth in a written agreement or in any way assured though the New Hampshire plans rely upon response actions by the Salisbury Police. This is contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 950.47(a)(1);

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Sections II.A.8 and NUREG-0654 A.2.b., II.A.3 and II.E.1."

In light of the decision on " realism" handed down by the Commission in Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), CLI-86-13, 24 NRC (July 24, 1986), this Contention, based upon the Massachusetts announced refusal to plan, is not litigable. The Contention should be excluded.

SAPL Contention No. 37 "The NHRERP Rev. 2 fails to' provide reasonable assurance of adequate public protection because an adequate number of emergency vehicles are not provided for in the plans and further there is no assurance that effective use of these vehicles will be possible in view of a potential outgoing flow of evacuating traffic and a significant lack of drivers. Therefore, these plans do not meet the requirements of 10 CFR

$50.47(a)(1), $50.47(b)(3),

$50.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654 II.J.10.g.

and II.J.lO.k."

Applicants object to the admission of this Contention for the lack of specificity.

Respectfully submitted,

.j Thoma's G. Dignan, Jr.

R. K. Gad III Kathryn A. Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (617) 423-6100 Counsel for Applicants

1 COLKEILE t,mt CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kathryn A. Selleck, one of the attorneys fgg ggy 11 P2:14 Applicants herein, hereby certify that on December 10, 1986,

, copies .-

I made service thereof of theExpress, with Federal within document prepaid,by depositig$to+(or,*MN fordelivehp where indicated, by depositing in the United States mai'IFM first class postage paid, addressed to):

Administrative Judge Helen Hoyt, Robert Carrigg, Chairman Chairperson, Atomic Safety and Board of Selectmen Licensing Board Panel Town Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atlantic Avenue Commission North Hampton, NH 03862 East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Diane Curran, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Andrea C. Ferster, Esquire Board Panel Harmon & Weiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 430 Commission 2001 S Street, N.W.

East West Towers Building Washington, DC 20009 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Jerry Harbour Stephen E. Merrill Atomic Safety and Licensing Attorney General Board Panel George Dana Bisbee U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission Office of the Attorney General East West Towers Building 25 Capitol Street 4350 East West Highway Concord, NH 03301-6397 Bethesda, MD 20814

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Board Panel Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Tenth Floor 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, MD 20814

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O. Box 516 Commission Manchester, NH 03105 Washington, DC 20555

e 1

Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J. P. Nadeau Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office Department of the Attorney 10 Central Road General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta, ME 04333 Paul McEachern, Esquire Carol S. Sneider, Esquire Matthew T. Brock, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Shaines & McEachern Department of the Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor P.O. Box 360 Boston, MA 02108 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall Route 107 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801

• Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros U.S. Senate Chairman of the Washington, DC 20510 Board of Selectmen (Attn: Tom Burack) Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950

• Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Peter J. Matthews One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III Mr. William S. Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall - Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen Office of General Counsel RFD Dalton Road Federal Emergency Management Brentwood, NH 03833 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20472 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire ,

Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03841 Concord, NH 03301

s.

O Mr. Ed. Thomas Judith H. Mizner, Esquire FEMA, Region I Silverglate, Gertner, Baker, 442 John W. McCormack Post Fine, Good & Mizner Office and Court House 88 Broad Street Post Office Square' Boston, MA 02110 Boston, MA 02109 Charles P. Graham, Esquire McKay, Murphy and Graham 100 Main Street Amesbury, MA 01913

/

.y H. A

/ Kathryn A. Selleck

(*= Ordinary U.S. First Class Mail.)

4

- .. -_. . . _ _ . _ _ -- _ _ . . . , . .- - - - - _ , .